news-record.com

BLOGS

Capital Beat

Hagan: No to federal collective bargaining over-ride

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-

In this post from over the weekend, I talked about state Sen. Kay Hagan and her position on unions. Specifically, the Democrat who is trying to unseat Republican Elizabeth Dole told our editorial board she might favor a federal policy that would force states like North Carolina to allow public employees to collectively bargain.

Cutting to the chase, Hagan says she misspoke. But a little background: For those who might have missed it, there's audio in the original post. But this exchange between Hagan and editorial writer Doug Clark will give you a flavor of what I'm talking about:

Clark: "This is (about) collective barging for public employees. So, North Carolina law doesn't allow that. But would you support federal legislation that would mandate recognition of collective bargaining writes for state employees?

Hagan: "Not mandate it, but I would look at having the collective bargaining process available if the employees so voted on that."

Clark: "If the employees...?"

Hagan: "They would have the authority to make that decision."

Clark: "So, if the NCAE wanted collective bargaining rights, you would support that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

Clark: "Even though current state law currently prohibits that?"

Hagan: "Yes."

A spokesman for the campaign called me over the weekend to say Hagan was confused and didn't mean to say that, that in fact she would not support such a law. Because that was in direct contradiction of several direct quotes, I asked to hear from Hagan herself.

Hagan called me this morning while I was on the line with someone else, but left a voice mail. I've posted a portion of it here, so you can hear straight from here. It cuts off abruptly at the end because she launches into a phone number that probably doesn't need to be on the internets.

Click here for the audio of that.

"Once I'm elected to the U.S. Senate, I want you to know that I will never support a bill at the federal level that mandates states allow collective bargaining of state government employees. I truly believe that's a state's rights issue," Hagan said.

As the football announcers say: you make the call.

Permalink
Tags: Election 2008

Posted by Mark Binker on Monday, September 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Jim Capo (imported)

September 8, 2008 - 4:30 pm EDT

In October of 2006, Doug Clark (N&R) blogged on his amazement over the effort of the UE union in North Carolina to use a Mexican labor union to strike down North Carolinaâ€™s ban against collective bargaining for state workers â€“ that is, workers whoâ€™s wages are paid by taxpayers â€“ an even larger group with no honest representation in Raleigh.

The UE and the Mexican union filed their complaint with the labor dispute panel set up under NAFTA. The charge is that the United States is violating its NAFTA obligations by allowing North Carolina to maintain labor laws that are not compliant with standards set by the UNâ€™s International Labour Organization (ILO).

This effort was only laughable, at the time, because unlike its counterpart in NAFTA for business disputes, rulings of the labor panel have no binding authority on the NAFTA trade partners. There is currently, however, legislation introduced in the US Congress to give the NAFTA labor panel binding authority. This is, in fact, one of the items that change agent Barack Obama is talking about when he says that NAFTA must be fixed.

When I spoke to my state senator Kay Hagan about this in November 2006, she said that, â€œcollective bargaining for state workers is not going to happen.â€ She should know she said because she sits on the Senate labor committee.

Hagan sounded pretty sure, but I decided to get a second opinion. When I discussed Haganâ€™s answer with Senator Bergerâ€™s staff, their immediate (partisan) response was, â€œOh, oh. If a Democrat in this state says something is not going to happen, it means they are getting ready to do it.â€ Sure enough, when the 2007 session opened a bill to amend the stateâ€™s labor statutes â€“ striking out the ban on collective bargaining was offered.

This bill is currently smoldering in a far off corner of the General Assembly, but look for things to heat up as the NCGA works to appease the next administration in Washington to avoid a row over NAFTA. The initial UE complaint of 2006, having been officially filed by the Mexican government over last summer, the US is required to officially respond by early 2009.

My guess is that candidate Hagan simply got mixed up as to which entity she was giving her â€œofficialâ€ position to. I suspect that some of the donors backing UEâ€™s efforts also show up as donors to Haganâ€™s campaign.

Here is a good historical item from when this push for striking down our state statutes by using international wannabe lawgivers seemed like a pipe dream.